Conflict/Debate: Some say free speech on campus is developmentally important to expose all students to different types of speech, even if they receive it as offensive as it helps build resilience and real-world knowledge. Others feel that it is important to instill speech codes that allow for inclusivity of the modern-day campus demographic with more diverse population.

QUESTION

5 sources:
https://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/a-progressive-case-for-campus-free-speech,207663?
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/991/campus-speech-codes
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/political-correctness-on-college-campus/
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/03/25/president-explains-why-he-opposes-free-speech-campuses-opinion
https://presidentemerita.virginia.edu/prepared-remarks-%E2%80%9Cwhen-middle-ground-high-ground-free-speech-and-university

Conflicts already established:
Conflict/Debate: Some say free speech on campus is developmentally important to expose all students to different types of speech, even if they receive it as offensive as it helps build resilience and real-world knowledge. Others feel that it is important to instill speech codes that allow for inclusivity of the modern-day campus demographic with more diverse population.

Position 1: The first position state that limiting free speech of campus is a form of oppression to all groups, including those in marginalized and minority groups. The solicitation of censorship on speech that some may find offensive could do more harm than good by coddling students instead of making them more resilient. Exposing students to with opposing perspectives and beliefs broadens their intellectual interest. Speech codes and other forms of limitation on free speech hinder a full education and therefore interfering with the developmental process.

Position 2: The second position feels that speech codes at colleges and universities are more suitable on the modern campus demographic since the significant increase of women and minority students since the 1970’s. Universities argue that it is necessary to enact such codes as they promote campus inclusivity, diversity and tolerance on campus. They also argue that such codes help prevent a “hostile environment” and prevent creating a divide within the student body. The prohibition of such speech also deter from distractions that take away from the academic agenda.

Common Ground:

Based on my research and recommended research by my peers in a previous discussion, a possible common ground that appears clear on both perspectives is the right for educational institutions to create an environment that is intellectually engaging for students. Free speech is not necessarily condoning a shouting match among students or controversial guest speakers, but promotes the exchange of ideas and conversation among students. While freely exercising speech, ideas and perspectives, universities and students must work together to condemn hate speech that promote racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of bias agendas.

Writing Project Four (200 points)
For this final essay, you will explore multiple positions for the purpose of proposing a compromise in a Rogerian style
essay. This is an argument, but instead of defending your own position, your goal is to argue for a mutually beneficial
compromise between two or more opposing positions.
Your Topic: Again, you may choose from the list of topics provided for you in the headings of the electronic anthology.
This means you may continue to explore your current topic, or if you would simply like to explore something new, you
can choose a different topic from the electronic anthology.
This essay requires persuasive strategies, synthesis, summarization, common ground, a build up to a compromise, and
other forms of basic argumentation. In order to provide a potential compromise, you will construct your essay using the
following parameters:
 Identify and briefly summarize the major oppositional opinions in the argument via the sources you find early in
the Unit.
a. What is their reasoning?
b. What points do they make? Etc…
 Describe possible commonalities between the major oppositional positions
 Identify a compromise to be argued in the essay – please remember that this position will not be presented as your
own but rather as the essay’s outlook.
 I would like you to include material from at least five (5) sources.
 Include a Works Cited page listing all of the outside sources used in the essay.
 If you have questions, you can e-mail me, and I am happy to help. Be certain to also look through the materials on
Rogerian argument that I have provided for you in the class content.
Audience:
Your audience for this essay will be hostile to compromise, so again, you will need to be persuasive in your attempts to
bring the two side together. Your job is to help your readers trust that you have come to a reasonable compromise.
Objectives:
 Enhance skills used in identifying debatable issues and their associated positions.
 Use research skills to build support for position.
 Explore the opposing viewpoints through counterargument.
Format:
Please develop the above topic in a five (5) to seven (7)-page essay. This essay should be formatted with 1-inch margins
on all sides and composed in 12-point Times New Roman. The paper should be developed using the MLA format, an
example of which can be found in Everything’s An Argument.

ANSWER

Finding Common Ground: A Compromise for Campus Free Speech

Introduction

The debate surrounding campus free speech has sparked intense discussions regarding the importance of unrestricted expression versus the need for inclusivity and tolerance on college campuses. On one side, advocates argue that free speech is essential for intellectual growth and resilience-building, while others assert that speech codes are necessary to foster a diverse and inclusive environment. In this essay, we will explore multiple positions and propose a compromise that seeks to address the concerns raised by both sides. By finding common ground and promoting a balance between free expression and inclusivity, we can create an intellectually engaging environment that upholds core values while ensuring a respectful and productive academic experience.

Summary of Oppositional Opinions

Position 1: The proponents of unlimited free speech contend that limitations on campus speech impede intellectual growth and hinder the development of critical thinking skills. They argue that exposure to diverse and potentially offensive ideas promotes resilience and real-world knowledge. They believe that speech codes and restrictions on free expression undermine the educational process by limiting intellectual exploration and creating an atmosphere of censorship.

Position 2: Supporters of speech codes argue that in the modern campus demographic, such regulations are necessary to promote inclusivity, diversity, and tolerance. They emphasize the need to protect marginalized and minority groups from harm by preventing the proliferation of hate speech and discriminatory language. Speech codes are seen as essential for maintaining a safe and supportive environment that fosters learning, respect, and equal opportunity for all students.

Identifying Commonalities

Amidst these divergent positions, there are commonalities that can serve as the foundation for a compromise. Both sides acknowledge the significance of intellectual engagement and the importance of providing a safe and respectful learning environment. Both agree that universities should condemn hate speech and discrimination while nurturing an atmosphere conducive to constructive dialogue and exchange of ideas. Recognizing these shared goals, we can move towards a compromise that balances the principles of free speech and inclusivity.

Proposed Compromise

In order to promote a mutually beneficial compromise, it is crucial to establish guidelines that uphold both free expression and the principles of inclusivity. One approach could involve implementing clear policies that differentiate between protected speech and speech that promotes harm or incites violence. These policies would define hate speech and discriminatory language while allowing for open discussions and debates on controversial topics. Furthermore, educational institutions should prioritize comprehensive education programs that promote understanding, empathy, and respectful communication. These programs would equip students with the tools to engage in civil discourse, challenge preconceived notions, and navigate difficult conversations.

Conclusion

The polarizing debate surrounding campus free speech necessitates a search for common ground and a compromise that upholds the core values of intellectual freedom, inclusivity, and respect. By recognizing the shared goals of both sides, we can move towards a solution that allows for robust intellectual engagement while safeguarding marginalized communities. Striking a balance between free expression and inclusivity requires clear policies that differentiate between protected speech and harmful behavior, accompanied by comprehensive education programs that foster empathy and understanding. This compromise ensures that universities remain vibrant hubs of intellectual exploration, where diverse perspectives are embraced, and respectful dialogue thrives. By promoting a compromise, we can create an environment that upholds the principles of free speech while cultivating a culture of inclusivity and intellectual growth.